deadly day on the roads today. What a happy holiday.(eta )

What a bloody day we have today on the roads. (http://www.ynet.co.il/home/0,7340,L-2,00.html).

I wonder what an outcry would have gone through the country had those six people ( and multiply crucial injured, including several children ) would have been hurt in a terrorist attack?

It never ceased to outrage me the… casual attitude this country has toward traffic accidents. More life were lost in this country from traffic accidents than from all the wars and terrorists acts combined. And yet, the attitude toward this is casual. The Legal and judicial system does not tread drivers who have a vast number of traffic offenses and ended up in fatal Accidents as it does people who are accused of first or Second-degree manslaughter.

Until the punishment of drivers who are involved in deadly accidents, as a result or neglect, or drunkenness, or a violation of multiply traffic laws is the same as toward people who are involved in manslaughter nothing will change here. People should be afraid of being caught while driving drunk, or in a speed of over 120 Miles per hour, and they are not.

I think that a driver who is drunk, driving in red light or over-speeding, and as a result is running over someone and killing him - that's not merely an accident, it's closer to a homicide

A car is as deadly a killing instrument as any, and killing someone because you were carless with your car, or killing someone cause you were careless with your gun is not so different., The end result is the same- one or more dead person and broken families. So why is the attidute so different? Why?

(no subject)

Now, this picture in the above link: http://images1.ynet.co.il/PicServer3/2013/03/27/4538641/EPA03642666645812Wa.jpg

Is beautiful.

It's from an article in Ynet, (http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4361439,00.html. There is no English translation yet). It's about the fight of gay couple in the States to legalize their marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court is asked to decide if the definition of marriage as a “covenant between a man and a woman only” is Constitutional. And there is a good chance the Supreme Court will decide on a historical No. The meaning of this decision will be a legalizing of Same-Sex marriage, and, in my eyes, a correction of an discrimination.

The picture above is the ultimate – and best answer – to any of those homophobes who think that same-sex relationship is “a disgusting mental sickness” ( hello, mother. Wouldn’t you be thrilled to learn that your youngest daughter is a Bi? ). Or those who raise signs that proclaim “Death penalty for homosexuals